Cross-border secondment reimbursements require separate employment and knowledge-transfer analysis before taxation as included services under the Indi...
Customs procedure uniformity requires adoption of model clearance practices, subject to specific local requirements and infrastructure or geographical...
Input tax credit cannot be denied to a bona fide purchasing dealer who transacted with a registered supplier and complied with statutory requirements merely because the supplier failed to deposit the tax collected from the purchaser. The proper remedy is to proceed against the defaulting supplier, not to shift the burden onto the purchaser by way of vicarious liability. The demand and appellate orders were set aside because the controversy was covered by binding precedent, but the Department retained liberty to act in accordance with law if material shows the transactions were collusive or not bona fide.
Input tax credit cannot be denied to a bona fide purchasing dealer who transacted with a registered supplier and complied with statutory requirements merely because the supplier failed to deposit the tax collected from the purchaser. The proper remedy is to proceed against the defaulting supplier, not to shift the burden onto the purchaser by way of vicarious liability. The demand and appellate orders were set aside because the controversy was covered by binding precedent, but the Department retained liberty to act in accordance with law if material shows the transactions were collusive or not bona fide.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.